Obama Got Served

Obama was served a subpoena to appear in a hearing last week in Georgia over his eligibility to appear on the state's ballot. Obama's attorney, Michael Jablonski, immediately filed a motion to quash the subpoena, which was denied by OSAH Judge Michael Malihi. In his denial, Judge Malihi seemed to leave open the possibility for a quash, if Jablonski had only offered appropriate legal authority in support. The judge asserted that "Defendant's motion suggests that no President should be compelled to attend a Court hearing. This may be correct. But Defendant has failed to enlighten the Court with any legal authority."

Instead of respectfully following procedure, however, Jablonski went over the judge's head and straight to Secretary of State Brian Kemp with a letter, sent the day before the hearings were scheduled, arguing that the entire matter should be dropped as it was "baseless, costly and unproductive[.]" Jablonski's letter concluded: "We await your taking the requested action, and as we do so, we will, of course, suspend further participation in these proceedings, including the hearing scheduled for January 26."

Kemp responded that his office lacked authority under Georgia law to suspend the hearings, and warned Jablonski that "if you and your client choose to suspend your participation in the OSAH proceedings, please understand that you do so at your own peril."

Jablonski remained true to his word -- neither he nor Obama showed up for the January 26 hearing. I noted last week that Obama was not scheduled to be anywhere near Atlanta on the date of the hearing, although I had wondered if still, perhaps, Georgia might be on his mind. According to reports in the blogosphere, the president's schedule on the morning of the 26th was open, and according to an unnamed source, Obama watched the live feed of the hearings.

Perhaps Obama, as well as the several mainstream media news outlets I spotted at the hearing, were merely watching in hopes that the "crazy birthers" would really do something...well, crazy. Or unlawful. In fact, though, it was the president himself and his defense team who were the ones defying the rule of law.

The mainstream media, in lockstep with Obama, reported nothing of the events, in a stunning blackout on a truly historic hearing -- one that discussed the eligibility of a sitting president to run for a second term. And more troubling was the fact that the media failed to acknowledge the even more sensational news -- that the president and his defense attorney snubbed an official subpoena.

Today, Attorney Van Irion, on behalf of his client, Georgia resident David Welden, filed a "Motion for Finding of Contempt" with Judge Malihi. Irion asserts that "... Defendant Obama willfully defied this Court's order to appear and testify[,]" and his "actions represent a direct threat to the entire judicial branch and the separation of powers between the branches of government." Irion argued that "[s]uch a declaration cannot go without response from this Court" and moved that the Court refer the "matter to the Superior Court of Fulton County for confirmation that the Defendant violated Administrative Rules of Procedure ... and to determine appropriate sanctions."

Now, will we get the opportunity to debate the meaning of "subpoena" -- or whether the law even applies to this president?

Obama was served a subpoena to appear in a hearing last week in Georgia over his eligibility to appear on the state's ballot. Obama's attorney, Michael Jablonski, immediately filed a motion to quash the subpoena, which was denied by OSAH Judge Michael Malihi. In his denial, Judge Malihi seemed to leave open the possibility for a quash, if Jablonski had only offered appropriate legal authority in support. The judge asserted that "Defendant's motion suggests that no President should be compelled to attend a Court hearing. This may be correct. But Defendant has failed to enlighten the Court with any legal authority."

Instead of respectfully following procedure, however, Jablonski went over the judge's head and straight to Secretary of State Brian Kemp with a letter, sent the day before the hearings were scheduled, arguing that the entire matter should be dropped as it was "baseless, costly and unproductive[.]" Jablonski's letter concluded: "We await your taking the requested action, and as we do so, we will, of course, suspend further participation in these proceedings, including the hearing scheduled for January 26."

Kemp responded that his office lacked authority under Georgia law to suspend the hearings, and warned Jablonski that "if you and your client choose to suspend your participation in the OSAH proceedings, please understand that you do so at your own peril."

Jablonski remained true to his word -- neither he nor Obama showed up for the January 26 hearing. I noted last week that Obama was not scheduled to be anywhere near Atlanta on the date of the hearing, although I had wondered if still, perhaps, Georgia might be on his mind. According to reports in the blogosphere, the president's schedule on the morning of the 26th was open, and according to an unnamed source, Obama watched the live feed of the hearings.

Perhaps Obama, as well as the several mainstream media news outlets I spotted at the hearing, were merely watching in hopes that the "crazy birthers" would really do something...well, crazy. Or unlawful. In fact, though, it was the president himself and his defense team who were the ones defying the rule of law.

The mainstream media, in lockstep with Obama, reported nothing of the events, in a stunning blackout on a truly historic hearing -- one that discussed the eligibility of a sitting president to run for a second term. And more troubling was the fact that the media failed to acknowledge the even more sensational news -- that the president and his defense attorney snubbed an official subpoena.

Today, Attorney Van Irion, on behalf of his client, Georgia resident David Welden, filed a "Motion for Finding of Contempt" with Judge Malihi. Irion asserts that "... Defendant Obama willfully defied this Court's order to appear and testify[,]" and his "actions represent a direct threat to the entire judicial branch and the separation of powers between the branches of government." Irion argued that "[s]uch a declaration cannot go without response from this Court" and moved that the Court refer the "matter to the Superior Court of Fulton County for confirmation that the Defendant violated Administrative Rules of Procedure ... and to determine appropriate sanctions."

Now, will we get the opportunity to debate the meaning of "subpoena" -- or whether the law even applies to this president?